Well shit, if you've got an appeal to my emotions and some anecdotal evidence that sometimes, bad things happen, I'm certainly willing to curb my own freedoms in hopes of making everyone's life perfect.
hahahaha well in that case I guess I'm free to wander into a hospital and kick outpatients in the groin .... sometimes, bad things happen
why should I have to curb my own freedoms?!
Oh shit, you've turned my argument against me.
Wait, that doesn't make any goddamn sense.
The freedom to have personal autonomy and make decisions about what does and doesn't go into your body makes sense.
There is, to my knowledge, no recognized freedom to intentionally injure other people.
So yeah, try again.
drug use has never hurt another person aside from its actual user?!
That is not the intended purpose of drug use, no. Unlike say, kicking people. I'm arguing that we accept "collateral damage" as it were as a perfectly acceptable price for most of our freedoms, and that I see no reason not to employ the same policy for drugs. The freedom of choose is more important than the occasional unpleasant side-effects.
Also it gives the CIA immense power over the deprived villagers of Southeast Asian mountain-side communities to the extent they can make their 13-year old boys fight and die for 'America.'
grayson have you ever seen anything like the things I've witnessed? things that would never have happened save for a massive drug addiction?
just curious.
I have, it's not something I want roaming the streets of my city freely, ever.
Again, in my experience the only people shouting for lax drug laws are the "party" users who are able to somewhat control their addiction, and believe that because they are able to that means EVERYONE should be able to. Unfortunately they for some reason fail to notice alcoholics and hard core smokers and factor that into their thinking.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
A distinction was made between 'hard' drugs, which involved an unacceptable degree of risk (drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and amphetamine) and cannabis products (marijuana and hashish) known as 'soft' drugs. The penalties for possession of these substances or for importing, exporting, or trafficking in them differ accordingly as to whether the substance in question is a hard drug or a cannabis product. Possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana, for instance, is a summary offense liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding one month, whereas possession of any hard drug is indictable.
Well shit, if you've got an appeal to my emotions and some anecdotal evidence that sometimes, bad things happen, I'm certainly willing to curb my own freedoms in hopes of making everyone's life perfect.
hahahaha well in that case I guess I'm free to wander into a hospital and kick outpatients in the groin .... sometimes, bad things happen
why should I have to curb my own freedoms?!
Oh shit, you've turned my argument against me.
Wait, that doesn't make any goddamn sense.
The freedom to have personal autonomy and make decisions about what does and doesn't go into your body makes sense.
There is, to my knowledge, no recognized freedom to intentionally injure other people.
So yeah, try again.
drug use has never hurt another person aside from its actual user?!
That is not the intended purpose of drug use, no. Unlike say, kicking people. I'm arguing that we accept "collateral damage" as it were as a perfectly acceptable price for most of our freedoms, and that I see no reason not to employ the same policy for drugs. .
wow .... spoken like a true asshole.
it's illegal, but it should be my choice so fuck all if something bad happens
"The freedom of choose is more important than the occasional unpleasant side-effects"
like a dead father. tugging heart strings be damned. If I had to grow up the rest of my life sans father because some fuck wad decided 'his choice' was more important then laws I'd be fucking pissed off.
A distinction was made between 'hard' drugs, which involved an unacceptable degree of risk (drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and amphetamine) and cannabis products (marijuana and hashish) known as 'soft' drugs. The penalties for possession of these substances or for importing, exporting, or trafficking in them differ accordingly as to whether the substance in question is a hard drug or a cannabis product. Possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana, for instance, is a summary offense liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding one month, whereas possession of any hard drug is indictable.
Is this outdated? Because I just saw an interview with a Dutch politian who explained the legality of drugs in the Netherlands, and he specifically said that the hard drugs were "tolerated" though technically illegal, if possessed in small amounts.
It all sounded very confusing, but the gist of it was that you won't get busted for small amounts of even hard drugs.
Well shit, if you've got an appeal to my emotions and some anecdotal evidence that sometimes, bad things happen, I'm certainly willing to curb my own freedoms in hopes of making everyone's life perfect.
hahahaha well in that case I guess I'm free to wander into a hospital and kick outpatients in the groin .... sometimes, bad things happen
why should I have to curb my own freedoms?!
Oh shit, you've turned my argument against me.
Wait, that doesn't make any goddamn sense.
The freedom to have personal autonomy and make decisions about what does and doesn't go into your body makes sense.
There is, to my knowledge, no recognized freedom to intentionally injure other people.
So yeah, try again.
drug use has never hurt another person aside from its actual user?!
That is not the intended purpose of drug use, no. Unlike say, kicking people. I'm arguing that we accept "collateral damage" as it were as a perfectly acceptable price for most of our freedoms, and that I see no reason not to employ the same policy for drugs. .
wow .... spoken like a true asshole.
it's illegal, but it should be my choice so fuck all if something bad happens
"The freedom of choose is more important than the occasional unpleasant side-effects"
like a dead father. tugging heart strings be damned. If I had to grow up the rest of my life sans father because some fuck wad decided 'his choice' was more important then laws I'd be fucking pissed off.
So I assume you'll be campaigning for removing the 2nd amendment as well then? More people die every year because of that treasured freedom than from drug use.
"The results were remarkable. Seventy per cent of addicts remained in the treatment programme and went on to methadone programmes or detox programmes and became drug free," says Mr Loecher. "While in the programme, their health situation improved, physically and mentally, their social integration improved, their criminal activity decreased significantly and overall the outcome was that they could be stabilised, they could hold jobs and they went back into society."
The idea here is that most of the real negatives of drug use come from it's illegality, the things the addict has to do to get the drug, i.e. getting cash, dealing with related crimes and the need to keep it hidden from family and friends. If an addict can actually get the stuff from a safe, clean, regulated supplier most of those go away, no alienating your family, no losing your job, no ending up on the street, no robbing folks for cash to pay for it. In other words you get treated like a person with an addiction, not a criminal to be hunted down and locked away.
admittedly this also puts a lot of dealers, pimps, turf enforcers, and illicit suppliers out of business as well but there is always a price to pay.
ALocksly on
Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
grayson have you ever seen anything like the things I've witnessed? things that would never have happened save for a massive drug addiction?
just curious.
We get that you've seen bad shit.
However, we think that if drugs are legal, fewer people will see shit that bad.
Ergo, you should agree with us.
That's about as simple as I can put it.
That doesn't make sense.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
What do you get when you take a crack-head and put him in prison?
A crack-dealer/thief/violent criminal, who supports an organized crime entity and funnels money into the hands of its leaders so that they may further recruit other users to push drugs on others, perpetuating the cycle as much as possible.
grayson have you ever seen anything like the things I've witnessed? things that would never have happened save for a massive drug addiction?
just curious.
We get that you've seen bad shit.
However, we think that if drugs are legal, fewer people will see shit that bad.
Ergo, you should agree with us.
That's about as simple as I can put it.
That doesn't make sense.
That's because you haven't been paying attention to the ridiculous amount of evidence (both logic and data) that have been presented by a bevy of members since the first page of this debate.
grayson have you ever seen anything like the things I've witnessed? things that would never have happened save for a massive drug addiction?
just curious.
We get that you've seen bad shit.
However, we think that if drugs are legal, fewer people will see shit that bad.
Ergo, you should agree with us.
That's about as simple as I can put it.
I disagree. If drugs are presented as legal more people will use them leading to more and escalating addictions.
Right. We got that.
But the facts disagree with you. Feel free to re-read this debate, and maybe take a look at how mcuh evidecne you pro-criminalization types have presented (none) and how much we pro-legalization types have presented (a shitload).
So, the fact that you disagree really doesn't matter, because you are wrong.
grayson have you ever seen anything like the things I've witnessed? things that would never have happened save for a massive drug addiction?
just curious.
We get that you've seen bad shit.
However, we think that if drugs are legal, fewer people will see shit that bad.
Ergo, you should agree with us.
That's about as simple as I can put it.
I disagree. If drugs are presented as legal more people will use them leading to more and escalating addictions.
You base this assertion on... ?
Probably from the same place that the other side believes that legalization in the United States would do the opposite.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Well shit, if you've got an appeal to my emotions and some anecdotal evidence that sometimes, bad things happen, I'm certainly willing to curb my own freedoms in hopes of making everyone's life perfect.
hahahaha well in that case I guess I'm free to wander into a hospital and kick outpatients in the groin .... sometimes, bad things happen
why should I have to curb my own freedoms?!
Oh shit, you've turned my argument against me.
Wait, that doesn't make any goddamn sense.
The freedom to have personal autonomy and make decisions about what does and doesn't go into your body makes sense.
There is, to my knowledge, no recognized freedom to intentionally injure other people.
So yeah, try again.
drug use has never hurt another person aside from its actual user?!
That is not the intended purpose of drug use, no. Unlike say, kicking people. I'm arguing that we accept "collateral damage" as it were as a perfectly acceptable price for most of our freedoms, and that I see no reason not to employ the same policy for drugs. .
wow .... spoken like a true asshole.
it's illegal, but it should be my choice so fuck all if something bad happens
"The freedom of choose is more important than the occasional unpleasant side-effects"
like a dead father. tugging heart strings be damned. If I had to grow up the rest of my life sans father because some fuck wad decided 'his choice' was more important then laws I'd be fucking pissed off.
So I assume you'll be campaigning for removing the 2nd amendment as well then? More people die every year because of that treasured freedom than from drug use.
yeah yeah and people get in car accidents too and fall off mountains and are eaten by sharks
drugs are illegal. guns etc. are not. people shouldn't be getting killed over drugs because they shouldn't have them in the first place.
Well shit, if you've got an appeal to my emotions and some anecdotal evidence that sometimes, bad things happen, I'm certainly willing to curb my own freedoms in hopes of making everyone's life perfect.
hahahaha well in that case I guess I'm free to wander into a hospital and kick outpatients in the groin .... sometimes, bad things happen
why should I have to curb my own freedoms?!
Oh shit, you've turned my argument against me.
Wait, that doesn't make any goddamn sense.
The freedom to have personal autonomy and make decisions about what does and doesn't go into your body makes sense.
There is, to my knowledge, no recognized freedom to intentionally injure other people.
So yeah, try again.
drug use has never hurt another person aside from its actual user?!
That is not the intended purpose of drug use, no. Unlike say, kicking people. I'm arguing that we accept "collateral damage" as it were as a perfectly acceptable price for most of our freedoms, and that I see no reason not to employ the same policy for drugs. .
wow .... spoken like a true asshole.
it's illegal, but it should be my choice so fuck all if something bad happens
"The freedom of choose is more important than the occasional unpleasant side-effects"
like a dead father. tugging heart strings be damned. If I had to grow up the rest of my life sans father because some fuck wad decided 'his choice' was more important then laws I'd be fucking pissed off.
Where do you draw the line here? A know a kid whose dad was recently diagnosed with diabetes. The stress of dealing with with this problem significantly strained the already shaky household, to say nothing of the cost of treatment. Should we ban Hostess snacks?
The last time I was at a punk concert, some asshole crowdsurfer kicked me in the head. Should we ban crowdsurfing, or maybe punk shows? How about kicking people in the head?
Bike riding is way more dangerous than driving (in terms of accidents per mile traveled). Should it be allowed?
Do we ban activities that increase the risk of other bad things happening, even though on its own the original activity is not particularily dangerous to others?
grayson have you ever seen anything like the things I've witnessed? things that would never have happened save for a massive drug addiction?
just curious.
We get that you've seen bad shit.
However, we think that if drugs are legal, fewer people will see shit that bad.
Ergo, you should agree with us.
That's about as simple as I can put it.
I disagree. If drugs are presented as legal more people will use them leading to more and escalating addictions.
Right. We got that.
But the facts disagree with you. Feel free to re-read this debate, and maybe take a look at how mcuh evidecne you pro-criminalization types have presented (none) and how much we pro-legalization types have presented (a shitload).
So, the fact that you disagree really doesn't matter, because you are wrong.
You've presented 1 (one), not a ton, and that's the relatively good fortune of other countries that are much smaller, have different economies, and different health care budgets/systems than we do.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment"--was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure
The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling. Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant.
ALocksly on
Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.
like a dead father. tugging heart strings be damned. If I had to grow up the rest of my life sans father because some fuck wad decided 'his choice' was more important then laws I'd be fucking pissed off.
drugs are illegal. guns etc. are not. people shouldn't be getting killed over drugs because they shouldn't have them in the first place.
And people don't get killed over things that are not drugs? Or they just don't get shot over things that are not drugs? And do you have some sort of evidence to back up that absurd claim?
Probably from the same place that the other side believes that legalization in the United States would do the opposite.
Emperical facts, reviewed schemes, and research? Please, link us.
people shouldn't be getting killed over drugs because they shouldn't have them in the first place.
WHY?
Answer the goddamn question. This is ridiculous.
because they're highly addictive and terrible for you.
Hello gross generalization, nice to meet you.
If there were no appeal to drugs, no one would do them. Clearly, there is a reason people do drugs other than "I want to get addicted to something" and/or "I want to die".
Perhaps...just maybe...some people enjoy them? And believe they should have the freedom to do so? Crazy fucking idea, I know.
like a dead father. tugging heart strings be damned. If I had to grow up the rest of my life sans father because some fuck wad decided 'his choice' was more important then laws I'd be fucking pissed off.
drugs are illegal. guns etc. are not. people shouldn't be getting killed over drugs because they shouldn't have them in the first place.
And people don't get killed over things that are not drugs? Or they just don't get shot over things that are not drugs? And do you have some sort of evidence to back up that absurd claim?
grayson have you ever seen anything like the things I've witnessed? things that would never have happened save for a massive drug addiction?
just curious.
We get that you've seen bad shit.
However, we think that if drugs are legal, fewer people will see shit that bad.
Ergo, you should agree with us.
That's about as simple as I can put it.
I disagree. If drugs are presented as legal more people will use them leading to more and escalating addictions.
Right. We got that.
But the facts disagree with you. Feel free to re-read this debate, and maybe take a look at how mcuh evidecne you pro-criminalization types have presented (none) and how much we pro-legalization types have presented (a shitload).
So, the fact that you disagree really doesn't matter, because you are wrong.
You've presented 1 (one), not a ton, and that's the relatively good fortune of other countries that are much smaller, have different economies, and different health care budgets/systems than we do.
I'm not the only one who's presented evidence.
And I've presented more than that. Not just data, but also logic. Not speculation, but logic. Like, if criminals aren't the ones selling drugs, organized crime (which includes gangs, not just the mafia) suffers. That's logic, not unsubstantiated speculation.
Also, the idea that if drugs are legal, people won't be as scared to get help.
Or that prison is a terrible place to go, and in no way helps people get clean.
because they're highly addictive and terrible for you.
Just so I can gauge where you're coming from a little better, can I just ask which drugs you think should be legal? Like, should alcohol and tobacco remain legal? Should cannabis become legal? What about non-harmful, non-addictive drugs like magic mushrooms?
National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment"--was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure
The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling. Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant.
National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment"--was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure
The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling. Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant.
Posts
That is not the intended purpose of drug use, no. Unlike say, kicking people. I'm arguing that we accept "collateral damage" as it were as a perfectly acceptable price for most of our freedoms, and that I see no reason not to employ the same policy for drugs. The freedom of choose is more important than the occasional unpleasant side-effects.
Are you going to ban alcohol?
No, and it seems it's a good thing too, since it appears to be killing your ability to rational discuss this topic.
I have, it's not something I want roaming the streets of my city freely, ever.
Again, in my experience the only people shouting for lax drug laws are the "party" users who are able to somewhat control their addiction, and believe that because they are able to that means EVERYONE should be able to. Unfortunately they for some reason fail to notice alcoholics and hard core smokers and factor that into their thinking.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
It appears hard drugs are still a no-no.
wow .... spoken like a true asshole.
it's illegal, but it should be my choice so fuck all if something bad happens
"The freedom of choose is more important than the occasional unpleasant side-effects"
like a dead father. tugging heart strings be damned. If I had to grow up the rest of my life sans father because some fuck wad decided 'his choice' was more important then laws I'd be fucking pissed off.
I kind of figured.
hope you never do.
We get that you've seen bad shit.
However, we think that if drugs are legal, fewer people will see shit that bad.
Ergo, you should agree with us.
That's about as simple as I can put it.
Is this outdated? Because I just saw an interview with a Dutch politian who explained the legality of drugs in the Netherlands, and he specifically said that the hard drugs were "tolerated" though technically illegal, if possessed in small amounts.
It all sounded very confusing, but the gist of it was that you won't get busted for small amounts of even hard drugs.
So I assume you'll be campaigning for removing the 2nd amendment as well then? More people die every year because of that treasured freedom than from drug use.
The idea here is that most of the real negatives of drug use come from it's illegality, the things the addict has to do to get the drug, i.e. getting cash, dealing with related crimes and the need to keep it hidden from family and friends. If an addict can actually get the stuff from a safe, clean, regulated supplier most of those go away, no alienating your family, no losing your job, no ending up on the street, no robbing folks for cash to pay for it. In other words you get treated like a person with an addiction, not a criminal to be hunted down and locked away.
admittedly this also puts a lot of dealers, pimps, turf enforcers, and illicit suppliers out of business as well but there is always a price to pay.
That doesn't make sense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Fix'd for you. (check the spoiler)
That's because you haven't been paying attention to the ridiculous amount of evidence (both logic and data) that have been presented by a bevy of members since the first page of this debate.
That's your fault, not mine. Learn to read.
I disagree. If drugs are presented as legal more people will use them leading to more and escalating addictions.
see my post above
and yet where they are legal that has not happened
You base this assertion on... ?
Right. We got that.
But the facts disagree with you. Feel free to re-read this debate, and maybe take a look at how mcuh evidecne you pro-criminalization types have presented (none) and how much we pro-legalization types have presented (a shitload).
So, the fact that you disagree really doesn't matter, because you are wrong.
Probably from the same place that the other side believes that legalization in the United States would do the opposite.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
yeah yeah and people get in car accidents too and fall off mountains and are eaten by sharks
drugs are illegal. guns etc. are not. people shouldn't be getting killed over drugs because they shouldn't have them in the first place.
Where do you draw the line here? A know a kid whose dad was recently diagnosed with diabetes. The stress of dealing with with this problem significantly strained the already shaky household, to say nothing of the cost of treatment. Should we ban Hostess snacks?
The last time I was at a punk concert, some asshole crowdsurfer kicked me in the head. Should we ban crowdsurfing, or maybe punk shows? How about kicking people in the head?
Bike riding is way more dangerous than driving (in terms of accidents per mile traveled). Should it be allowed?
Do we ban activities that increase the risk of other bad things happening, even though on its own the original activity is not particularily dangerous to others?
Emperical facts, reviewed schemes, and research? Please, link us.
WHY?
Answer the goddamn question. This is ridiculous.
So you're saying he's illiterate? Or just retarded?
mostly the fact that drugs are addictive.
ever quit smoking?
now try it with coke.
You've presented 1 (one), not a ton, and that's the relatively good fortune of other countries that are much smaller, have different economies, and different health care budgets/systems than we do.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
because they're highly addictive and terrible for you.
Except we've used evidence, to support our claims.
You might want to look into this idea if you want to try debating people.
Most drugs are less addictive than alcohol and tobacco, so that's a pretty shitty argument.
I'm noticing a trend here.
coke is less addictive that nicotene
So you also endorse a ban on motorcycles.
And people don't get killed over things that are not drugs? Or they just don't get shot over things that are not drugs? And do you have some sort of evidence to back up that absurd claim?
Hello gross generalization, nice to meet you.
If there were no appeal to drugs, no one would do them. Clearly, there is a reason people do drugs other than "I want to get addicted to something" and/or "I want to die".
Perhaps...just maybe...some people enjoy them? And believe they should have the freedom to do so? Crazy fucking idea, I know.
actualy I support a ban on everything.
in the world.
even me.
even you.
I'm not the only one who's presented evidence.
And I've presented more than that. Not just data, but also logic. Not speculation, but logic. Like, if criminals aren't the ones selling drugs, organized crime (which includes gangs, not just the mafia) suffers. That's logic, not unsubstantiated speculation.
Also, the idea that if drugs are legal, people won't be as scared to get help.
Or that prison is a terrible place to go, and in no way helps people get clean.
We presented a shitload of evidence.
You're the one who's still working on piece one.
Just so I can gauge where you're coming from a little better, can I just ask which drugs you think should be legal? Like, should alcohol and tobacco remain legal? Should cannabis become legal? What about non-harmful, non-addictive drugs like magic mushrooms?